MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132532494 · doi:10.1093/jhered/esp092

Maternal Effects on the Hygienic Behavior of Russian x Ontario Hybrid Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.)

2009· article· en· W2132532494 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Unger, Ernesto Guzmán‐Novoa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodBiologyHoney BeesHybridWorker beeZoologyInheritance (genetic algorithm)GenotypeEcologyGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strains and hybrids of Russian and Ontario honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) were evaluated for hygienic behavior at both colony and individual levels. The objectives were to determine phenotypic and genotypic variability and to study the inheritance of this behavior. At the colony level, Russian bees uncapped and removed significantly more freeze-killed brood than Ontario bees. The most hygienic Russian colonies and the least hygienic Ontario colonies were selected to perform reciprocal crosses between the strains. Bees from the hybrid colonies as well as from the parental colonies were tagged and introduced into observation hives, where hygienic behavior was directly observed on a piece of frozen brood comb. Russian and hybrid bees of Russian mother had the highest percentages of workers uncapping cells and removing brood. Conversely, Ontario and hybrid bees of Ontario mother had the lowest percentages of individuals for these variables. Differences were also observed among the 4 genotypes for their degree of specialization on hygienic tasks. Russian and hybrid bees of Russian mother showed a significantly higher uncapping frequency per individual than Ontario and hybrid bees of Ontario mother. These results demonstrate phenotypic and genotypic variability for hygienic behavior and are suggestive of maternal effects in the inheritance of hygienic traits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HereditySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207